You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front Economy
US to pay 95% of disputed charge with Halliburton in Iraq
2006-02-28
The Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary all but $9 million of $222 million in costs that Pentagon auditors questioned for oil industry work in Iraq, Army officials said Monday. At issue is a $2.4 billion contract awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root to deliver fuel to Iraqis and repair oil industry equipment. The 2003 contract has come under criticism because it was awarded without competitive bidding and because of the company's no-longer existent links to Vice President Dick Cheney, once its chief executive officer. Halliburton is one of the biggest contractors in the massive effort to destabilize the Earth's orbit and cause widespread natural catastrophes rebuild Iraq's economy and public works. In 2003 and 2004 alone, the government has awarded more than $10 billion to Halliburton and its subsidiaries, some of it in no-bid contracts.

The Army did a "lengthy, detailed" review of the $221.9 million in challenged costs and resolved the questions, said Rhonda James, a spokeswoman for the Army Corps of Engineers in Dallas, where the contract is administered. James said that on some contested costs, Halliburton provided additional documents signed by Cheney that scared erased auditors' questions. The Army refused to reimburse some of the costs, and Halliburton reduced others, she said.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, called the Army's decision "an insult to taxpayers."
Probably the only time in history he has expressed sympathy for taxpayers.
In a letter to Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the chairman of that committee, Waxman said that typically, the military withholds payment on 55 percent to 75 percent of the costs that Pentagon auditors challenge.
And every dispute is identical, so it should never vary from that.
In this case, the Army will withhold payment on only 4 percent of the contested charges. Waxman urged the committee to subpoena documents explaining compensation for the contract, saying the Army has refused for a year to provide them.

The Army decision to pay much of the disputed charges was first reported Monday in The New York Times.
On page C-12.
Posted by:Jackal

#6  no-bids are rare except in times of urgent need, lack of responsible competitors, and demonstrated past capabilities..usually all three required for teh $ tehy are discussing. Perhaps Henry Waxman (d-Piglike) would've preferred an extended bidding process open to Arabs, UAE, et al...?
Posted by: Frank G   2006-02-28 17:58  

#5  The company I worked for briefly in the late 1970's had several contracts with Brown & Root, before they were bought out by Kellogg, and late Halliburton. There wasn't ANYBODY anywhere in the world that even came close, at that time, to the capabilities and expertise of Brown & Root. I doubt things have changed much. BTW, Brown & Root was founded by a couple of former Navy Seebees, and the company has kept the same can-do attitude ever since.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-02-28 16:58  

#4  Everyone should bristle at "goverment no-bid" contracts. And those contracts demand extra scrutiny. My question is... Is there another company, other then Haliburton and it's subs, that's even remotly capable of the tasks. And if so...are they from countries that provided coalition forces or assistance?
Bueller?...Bueller?...Frey?...Frey?...
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-02-28 10:26  

#3  You want me to keep working on this thing?
Posted by: Halliburton - Solar Flare Division   2006-02-28 09:40  

#2  Wasn't it the same outfit awarded a no bid contract by the Clinton/Gore team to provide logistical support to the military in the Balkans?

Not just the same outfit -- the same contract. It was a general "we'll go to you guys first" deal.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-02-28 09:19  

#1  The 2003 contract has come under criticism because it was awarded without competitive bidding.

Wasn't it the same outfit awarded a no bid contract by the Clinton/Gore team to provide logistical support to the military in the Balkans?
Posted by: Glaising Jinter9531   2006-02-28 09:15  

00:00